Gipps v Gipps: 1978

(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) In order to defeat a claim in misrepresentation, it is necessary for the false belief to be ‘wholly dissipated’ for knowledge to defeat misrepresentation. Huttley JA said: ‘Any other rule would be an affront to commonsense. It would mean that, if a person dealing with a rogue has made to him a representation which he knows to be false, but believes to be false to a particular extent, he has no right of action, after making the contract in reliance upon the representation as adjusted by the representee, even though he later learns that the misrepresentation was greater than he suspected.
. . The only way in which the decision of the trial judge on this issue can be effectively attacked would be to show that the respondent understood completely the extent of her husband’s misrepresentations; or, possibly, that the difference between what she understood and the extent of his misrepresentations was so minute that his Honour should have decided that it was irrelevant.’
Hutley JA said: ‘[t]o state that a person is induced by a statement is to affirm a causal relation which is a question of fact, not of law’


Hutley, Glass and Samuels JJA


[1978] FLC 90-523, [1978] 1 NSWLR 454, 9 ACLR 706, 3 ACLC 424



Cited by:

CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588899